Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#160 - xxxsonic fanxxx (02/10/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled a random image posted in comment #14 at Praying for their gods ** Is the new science guy
**anonymous rolled a random image posted in comment #14 at Praying for their gods ** Is the new science guy
-8
#157 - shirooo has deleted their comment [-]
#143 - xxxsonic fanxxx (02/10/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 86** Bill Nye....THE DUBS GUY! ZINGOOOO!!!!!
User avatar #140 - ianchrist (02/10/2014) [-]
The creation guy did have one good point.
In schools we are told that our scientific theories are a fact. Evolution is taught the way that Darwin wrote it--we associate him with natural selection. We base things on what he said. But he was wrong about a couple of things, and those things have been disproven over time. In order to keep disproving things and bettering our understanding of the universe we have to keep disproving preconceived ideas. Bill Nye said it a few times "If you disprove Newton, congratulations you can change the world". The problem is that, in our American education system, we AREN'T taught this. We are told things are FACTS. We are destroying the drive to find new things.

So no, the creationist model should not be taught in school, but things like evolution should have a huge disclaimer. Never in recorded human history has there been a record of an animal changing into another, never has it been proven how old the world is--but we accept these things as scientific fact.

In the end, Ham's only good point was that, yes, it does take a large amount of faith to believe in evolution. But he's still a moron.

-from a christian who accepts evolution
User avatar #390 to #140 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Also if you really understood evolution, you'd know that evolution doesn't say an animal changes into another animal.
User avatar #389 to #140 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
We don't teach it the way Darwin wrote it, while the basic facts on natural selection applies Darwin had a lot of things wrong that where improved upon with the discovery of medelian genetics.
User avatar #406 to #389 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
"We don't teach it the way Darwin wrote it"

When did you start working at my highschool?
User avatar #407 to #406 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
School curriculum states that scientific facts taught in school always needs to have the most recent data. If you really where taught evolution specifically as darwin wrote it then it's no wonder you don't seem to understand how it works.
User avatar #410 to #407 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
my entire post is an argument about the flaw in our public schools--in fact the nye-ham debate was all about teaching his model in school. Ham made a point that evolution is not taught correctly. I said that that was a good point.

What don't you understand?
User avatar #411 to #410 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
The thing is evolution is taught correctly in public schools, biology schoolbooks get frequently updated. Also thumbing me down isn't going to make you look any more credible.
User avatar #415 to #411 - ianchrist (02/12/2014) [-]
thumb down for misunderstanding my points, not for disageeeing.

I can assure you, it is not taught correctly in my school, and being from a very wealthy area in the northeast, i can assure you that in less-open minded and less funded schools they would not teach it correctly either
User avatar #416 to #415 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/12/2014) [-]
So now you're essentially just relying on anecdotes and assumptions, sounds a lot like Ken Ham's presentation.
User avatar #417 to #416 - ianchrist (02/12/2014) [-]
attacking a hole in the other person's argument instead of stating facts...
sounds like ken ham's argument
User avatar #418 to #417 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/12/2014) [-]
Alright then so how is evolution taught so incorrectly at your school?
User avatar #419 to #418 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
we were given forks and told to pick up fruitloops. Then they handed us chop sticks and we were told to pick up the same fruitloops.
The chopsticks were easier, so they told us that the forks would have died from not being able to eat the fruitloops.
A student rasies their hand,
"Why are there even chopsticks?" he asks "Where did they come from?"
"Genetic mutations," my teacher answers. "The fork randomly gave birth to a chopstick with no other downsides and it survived. Then their food sources ran out and they had to eat fruitloops, but they couldn't so only the chopstick lived."
"But," asks a confused student. "What are the chances that their other food would go away once the chopstick was born? What if the chopstick had been born back when they were eating spaghetti. It would have died. What if the chopstick had a mutation where it also didn't have legs, so it died. What about the mutation where the baby was a spoon or a laddel?"
"Well," the teacher tries to explain, sweating, "those other babies die. As for the chopstick, it just kinda happens. Its chance."
"So," says the first student, "all the forks would have died, and the entire lineage would have gone completly extinct if not for this chance mutation?"
"Yes," the teacher said. "And thats why you're all monkies."


This is basically how I learned about evolution in school. One of my best friends (an atheist) told me after class how it really worked. We talked more about natural selection, how every baby born has a mutation, and thus animals are constantly changing, and how evolution really only exists as a concept because we label animal species. One species does not magically turn into another, they are always changing, the argument is when we call it something new.

My main point is that the public school system is messed up, and Ken Ham is right--it takes faith to accept this model of evolution--but its because we aren't being educated properly.
*end rant*
User avatar #421 to #419 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
Also literally no good public school teaches evolution this way, they would especially not make such huge errors like saying humans are monkeys when they are clearly apes. Your school just explains evolution very poorly, that doesn't mean the education system is flawed, it means your teacher is.
User avatar #423 to #421 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
I'm just going to leave this here (believe it if you will): my county is the 10th richest in the US and my highschool is in the top 100 in my state.

I must assume that poorer schools, or schools in the mid-west/south would teach evolution worse than my school did.
User avatar #425 to #423 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
Teaching has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the school, it has to do with the quality of the teacher. And there are many intelligent teachers in poor schools who do properly teach evolution.

Furthermore the way evolution is taught in schools isn't defined by your anecdotes, it's defined by the actual biology textbooks, so i dare you to find me a certified biology textbook made by experts that actually made this chopstick fruitloops analogy.
User avatar #420 to #419 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
That's not incorrect, it's just poorly explained.

The teacher uses chopsticks and forks as a metaphor of two species with the chopsticks being the ones that where more suited to the enviroment thus increasing the chance of the chopsticks surviving.

A better illustration would be with real animals, imagine you had a species of fish that could only eat a particular kind of food (let's use purple and yellow food for easy explanation), this species of fish can only eat purple food, but one day a genetic mutation happened in one of the fish that allowed him to also eat yellow food, this fish reproduces creating other fish with this mutation. Now there are two population of fish, one that only eats purple food and one that eats both, now if purple food where to become scarce it means that the ones eating only purple food have a low chance of survival and reproduce, meaning that the ones eating yellow food are more likely to survive, hence the fish now eating both evolved from the fish eating only purple food.

Food doesn't just go away the second the mutation appeared, he just used that as an example of the possibility that can happen in the process of natural selection.

Evolution is not just a concept, evolution is described as the change in the heritable traits of populations within generations, this happens and we can observe it, if there's enough heritable changes within the genes these will stack up gradually and eventually you will have over many generations an animal that is genetically so different that it can't interbreed with their ancestors or not even look like them anymore, that's when we label it a new species.

And contrary to what you think, species have turned into other species. The definition of a species is any animal that can reproduce fertile offspring, many ring-species can be found in nature that have evolved over time and can't reproduce with eachother anymore while they where the same animal 20-30 years ago.
User avatar #422 to #420 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
the point is that believing the .000000000001% chance that the chopstick would be born at the moment that the forks have to start eating fruitloops takes faith.

I never said that was how it worked. I said that was how it was explained to me in public school, which is what the entire ham-nye debate was about. Ham said "evolution takes faith, lets teach creation" nye said "no it doesn't shut yo mouth fool".
The reason that creationism is such a "popular' idea is that evolution, as taught in schools, makes no sense, thus ham had a point.

User avatar #424 to #422 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
It's never implied that animals would be born at the same time food became scarce, he could've easily meant that the food became scarce a couple of generations after they where born. The point is that animals with specific genetic traits respond to their enviroment and the ones that suit the enviroment and are more likely to reproduce will pass on their genes and eventually evolve.

Evolution doesn't take faith just like gravity doesn't, because these are established facts backed up with mountains of evidence. Just because YOUR teacher happened to explain evolution poorly which he didn't even did by the book doesn't mean that the modern darwinian synthesis shouldn't be taught as fact at school.
#217 to #140 - cronois (02/10/2014) [-]
I brought this same argument up before with a teacher citing the earth being flat, the earth being the center of the universe and continental drift becoming plate tectonics. Any opposing idea at the time was ridiculed by the scientific community at the time and written off cause an opposing argument was regarded as fact only to then itself be regarded as fact centuries later. In no part of the scientific method is "fact" involved, but that's the problem with the education system they tell children what to think, not teach them how to think.
#194 to #140 - xxxsonic fanxxx (02/10/2014) [-]
why does it take any faith to believe in evolution? that like saying it takes faith to believe gravity exists. We haven't observed animals changing into other animals but we have over whelming evidence that it happened, the same with the age of the earth.
User avatar #338 to #194 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
its mainly because it has to do with the origin of humans. Gravity, pfft, who cares, but how man came to be, what makes us who we are, free will, etc, are all touchy subjects. Thus they should be taught as philosophical questions, not "Facts" as my school did for me
User avatar #179 to #140 - wthree (02/10/2014) [-]
You personally have never been to the moon, but you till accept it's existence.
#152 to #140 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
I should point out that the act of selective breeding in various animals is a form of evolution just being controlled by humans and as such is no longer in the hands of mother nature. True, this isn't exactly taking one animal and changing it into another but the process is there and given enough time, a new species could arise from this scenario.
#133 - xxxsonic fanxxx (02/10/2014) [-]
Just my personal hypothesis, but doesn't the second law of thermodynamics rule out the possibility of evolution? It states that order can not form from chaos, and it applies to matter and energy. Since everything is made up of matter, it can be applied to biology as well. So the theory that all life originated from a disorganized pool of goo and spontaneously organized itself into a living organism seems a little far fetched. But what do I know? Just a hypothesis.
#165 to #133 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
I think you have a misunderstanding of that law. "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium: the state of maximum entropy." Basically as long as the universe as a whole is moving toward maximum "chaos" then small pockets of "order" are allowed to exist.
User avatar #161 to #133 - smokingman (02/10/2014) [-]
A "disorganized pool of goo" is an uniform environment, as its components are equally distributed.

A complex organism is not uniform.



#129 - deddead ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
I am a christian, but I believe we could have had a looooooooooooot better person than him to argue our side. That or he could have argued better, and not like a 5 year old. Some things are just too complex to have just happened, and partially evolved species have no survival advantage
Those are the two main problems I have with the big bang and evolution
User avatar #388 to #129 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Then you clearly haven't studied evolution properly.
#174 to #129 - webhead (02/10/2014) [-]
Agreed, homie.
User avatar #150 to #129 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Partially evolved species have no survival advantage..?

If there's no advantage, then the abnormality of the species that has the slight difference will have the same or less chance of breeding, which basically is evolution - a random thing has a slight difference that puts it slightly above competitors so it can live longer to have sex or it attracts more mates. If the abnormality is not advantageous, it's likely to not breed and that characteristic will not be passed on... Partially evolved species who don't have the advantage will die, which allows the advantageously evolved species to take the place. I'm confused by what you're not getting...
#197 to #150 - honkitonk (02/10/2014) [-]
please, don't act like you've got it all figured out. you must've had biology in some point of you life. there are for example groups of indigenous africans that have a green-red colourblindness. why do they still exist? because of something called the " Population bottleneck". look it up, exercise yourself and then we can talk about how the nat. selection eradicates weak individuals. "not every step in evolution makes sense", -words of my paleontology professor.
User avatar #209 to #197 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Please, stop being such a prick.
"If there's no advantage, then the abnormality of the species that has a slight difference will have the same chance or less of breeding,"
That is exactly what I said. Color blindness is not an advantage, so it's not giving a big upper hand to the mating or survival process, BUT in that scenario, it's not really preventing them from ******* .

Also, I never claimed to be an expert on this, so just go take that stick out of your ass.
#219 to #209 - honkitonk (02/10/2014) [-]
you didn't read the article right? could've saved you the trouble. selection by natural disaster. no evolution here. only the cold heart of nature. sorry for being a prick here, but if there is one thing i hate with a deep passion, its people who act all smart and allknowing, applauding the ontologic atheism, when in fact they know **** . well no, i don't hate these people, just their inconceivable ignorance.
User avatar #222 to #219 - lostinthemusic (02/10/2014) [-]
Like you're acting?
#223 to #222 - honkitonk (02/11/2014) [-]
that is your idea of a valuable contribution to a discussion?please, see yourself to the door. fyi, i wasn't acting, its called scientific research and citing credible sources( btw the bottleneck one: mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.long )
User avatar #224 to #223 - lostinthemusic (02/11/2014) [-]
I don't really care about this conversation. I just felt the need to point out you were acting like the "all smart and all knowing" trying to shove your opinion and ideas down other peoples throats. You can give your opinion without being a dick. Maybe work on that. That's all.
#146 to #129 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
You do realize that according to evolution everything is evolving side by side and not to an end goal. Something that is disadvantageous now could have had an advantage in the past, example: the appendix and wisdom teeth. Most Christians seem to be under the misconception that various body parts just spontaneously evolved at once and would result in some sort of Frankenstein creation where different parts of the body are at different stages of evolution this is simply not the case. Aside from evolution the Big Bang is a whole other issue. The Big Bang signifies a point in which energy was converted to matter all in a chain reaction that resembled an explosion. At the beginning of the universe there was only hydrogen, the smallest and weakest form of stable matter and over billions of years was converted into the various elements we know today through the process of fusion within stars. I would advise you actually read up on the subject in detail rather than gleaming the bits and pieces that theists decide they want to teach you.
#166 to #126 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
Who says I can't?
User avatar #149 to #126 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
Cloaca master race
User avatar #127 to #126 - perdition (02/10/2014) [-]
the Bible says so
#120 - mindset (02/10/2014) [-]
Tilt your head to the left, secret message appears in Nye's notes
#117 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Just my personal opinion, but if i were god i would want my creations to go out there and discover nature and my creation instead of sticking your ears and get all your idea's from a translated outdated book.
User avatar #241 to #117 - majormayor ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
That really is just your opinion, man.
#181 to #117 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
you never played the sim's haven't you?
User avatar #107 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
I never understood why religious people don't get amazed by stuff too. I don't mean to be all "Ohwow the sun my God isn't real now."

I mean. Sometimes it'd be cool to just hear someone say "Wow. God put a lot of effort into making all of these small unique parts of the universe. He must be a pretty swell guy!"
User avatar #276 to #107 - monsieurhonkhonk (02/11/2014) [-]
...what makes you think they don't?
Because I mostly hear from Christians about how beautiful everything in creation is. It's mostly about things on earth, yeah, but that's because they've seen it with their own eyes.
#135 to #107 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
They do.

Just in Europe.

Like seriously, this ******* conservative Christianism is mostly only a problem in the US. Which is ******* laughable.
User avatar #136 to #135 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
Like. I had a science teacher that basically said "Look. I'm going to have faith in my God until I'm proven otherwise. It's how I feel. You can believe whatever you want."
That dude then showed us how different chemicals burn different colors. No idea why.
#145 to #136 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
It's because he probably doesn't believe in how the Bible portrays a god?

That's how I believe it anyway. A god, somewhere, somewhy, somehow made the universe(s), and to keep it effective and in motion, he made it with the laws of time and physics, and everything in-between.

There are many different ways a man can believe, that's why I try not to over-think it. I don't think that if there's a God or divine power, he/she/it would want us to actively wage wars over his name or worship his "feet". Just say thanks sometimes maybe?

Eh, whatever, humanity doesn't like opinions that much.
#187 to #145 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
pretty much acknowledging that god gave us the gift of life for a reason and that we should not waste it kissing up to his ass in the hopes we will make it into the promised land of sunshine and fluffy clouds of eternal boredom.

reasons like discovering yourself, the universe, all of creation and you know doing all the stuff that makes life worth living for yourself and others.
User avatar #147 to #145 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
I never really got to ask him. I wanted to, but it's kind of a big no for a teacher to talk to a student about religion. I mean, once I had a history teacher skip an entire section just because a muslim and christian kid got into a fight about who was better; Jesus vs. Mohamed.
#189 to #147 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
i think in a fight mohamed would win by a long shot.
#244 to #189 - draaaaiven (02/11/2014) [-]
But that number is imaginary.
#158 to #147 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Well damn, that sucks. We still can talk about this stuff sometimes, of course it's the last years of high school so we know everyone, but eh, yeah.

Well, anyways, it's been good mate. See ya later.
User avatar #151 to #147 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
A friend in North Battleford came to school to watch his teacher being removed for trying to teach the students the Holocaust wasn't real.
User avatar #155 to #151 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
My teachers so far have been great with this whole free thinking thing. I even joked about the Holocaust not happening and my history teacher just said "You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but I'd prefer it if you read up on history before being so adamant about something as controversial as the Holocaust."
User avatar #156 to #155 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
Ya one of my history teachers actually got the board of ed pissed off because he was showing us the bias behind the movies on the Riel rebellion.
#106 - autoxx ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Well, look at it from a matter of consequence.   
If science prevails we have ever increasing technology with a steadily improving quality of life.   
   
If Religion prevails... Boom! Dark ages  (you know, like the last time religion was dominant)
Well, look at it from a matter of consequence.
If science prevails we have ever increasing technology with a steadily improving quality of life.

If Religion prevails... Boom! Dark ages (you know, like the last time religion was dominant)
User avatar #243 to #106 - majormayor ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
"dark ages"
Your argument is trash.
User avatar #172 to #106 - Yardie (02/10/2014) [-]
Religion can have societal benefits as well as drawbacks. It's not all bad. For example many churches are basically Charity organizations for the poor, while some abuse the power of religion to swindle money from people.
#178 to #172 - autoxx ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Agreed but religion has historically been about money and power, not enlightenment.
Creating a dramatic consequence to keep people in line doesn't promote unconventional thought...
There are instances where people have done selfless good but they are individuals, you don't need to be religious for that. Once an organization of any kind get involved it is only about money and power.

When was the last time you saw a "humble" church that wasn't surrounded by worse-looking houses. No, opulence attracts those seeking something more (but not spiritual), that is why so much money is spent on an unnecessarily ornate building.
#195 to #178 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
this enlightening 						******					 right here.
this enlightening ****** right here.
User avatar #193 to #178 - Yardie (02/10/2014) [-]
Well you're pretty much correct. Resources taken by the church are taken through coercion via tithe, depending on how you look at it.

However the Church does provide the service of bringing a community together, so it's not 100% wrong.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but nothing is really. Keeping society tame and moral is a difficulty we as humans face, and religion is one way to help, although it does create many other problems in its wake.
#211 to #193 - autoxx ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
The idea/ideals that (most) religions should bring are good ones, humans are the problem.
We are subject to the problems of our overpopulation, envy, greed, pitching a tent towards thy neighbor's wife.

The muslim faith is one that preaches hostility and aggression, I can't get behind those ideas.
As a member of that faith it is your duty to convert or kill anyone not associated... ************* .gif
Buddhism makes about the most sense but most "Buddhists" don't actually follow their religion's teachings.
Science on the other hand educates, educated people are more free to make decisions not based on fear.
Science is the one true religion.
User avatar #220 to #211 - Yardie (02/10/2014) [-]
Although I know you're joking, Science and Religion don't mix. Unless you're saying that every scientific discovery should be worshiped and never questioned, which goes against scientific theory.

Religion is related to morality and conceptual thought while Science is related to the study of the practical world.

They are completely separate.
#299 to #220 - autoxx ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Ok, I like you. This kind of debate is fun.
Scientific method and religious doctrine are polar opposites. Agreed.
I "believe" morality and logic have a very high correlation though.
Our laws were created by logical men to govern logical people.
Religious fervor and sociopathic tendencies will always be outside the reach of law because they don't hold to logic and thus have no place in a logic based society.
On the flip side there is a strong correlation between religion and immoral behavior.
Ritual sacrifice, the crusades, the taliban, etc.
Religion is never too far away from violence.
User avatar #153 to #106 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
It's good to have a bit of religion though. Even though we have morality, religion kinda keeps a grip on people to act morally by presenting them with a big consequence after death. Ya people have morals but science as gotten pretty questionable in the sense of research tactics and I don't want a rapture style approach to medicine.
#98 - matrixone (02/10/2014) [-]
Bill

You weren't there

ok

bill

ples
#377 to #98 - hybridxproject (02/11/2014) [-]
mfw that pretty accurately sums up his entire arguement
mfw that pretty accurately sums up his entire arguement
User avatar #95 - castanicwolf (02/10/2014) [-]
i like how you added the stickers on bills mac, but there should have been a long one on the right side of it
0
#93 - dildodude has deleted their comment [-]
#89 - wildberk (02/10/2014) [-]
I personally loved the debate, but it's not something to get so fed up with. I mean this 						****					 has been happening for centuries. Science comes along, called witchcraft.  What bugs me is that  some people can't look at science as gift rather then something trivial or bad. Science allows us to succeed, simple as that.
I personally loved the debate, but it's not something to get so fed up with. I mean this **** has been happening for centuries. Science comes along, called witchcraft. What bugs me is that some people can't look at science as gift rather then something trivial or bad. Science allows us to succeed, simple as that.
User avatar #96 to #89 - wildberk (02/10/2014) [-]
I should also state that I believe in having a faith. Science shouldn't be seen as an enemy though, but rather an ally.
User avatar #85 - riddlerenigma ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
First things first. I'm an atheist so please understand where I'm coming from.

Science was only proven to be true because someone had to put faith into. I.E. that had to believe in it before it was found true.
All it takes is one form of proof to make us all say that God, Jesus or any other god that exists out their.
User avatar #113 to #85 - IamWhoIam (02/10/2014) [-]
The difference is science is subject to and accepting of change where as Religion is far more rigid in this regard. As humans advance we have to advance our knowledge with us so for religion or any beliefs to survive they must evolve with them. Now it's not like religion is not able to change look at the Protestant Reformation, the split in Islam between Shiite and Sunni, and the Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism. People are favoring science more because it can change as we discover differences in how we perceive our world and makes more sense to them then the more rigid beliefs of Mono and Polytheist religions.
User avatar #91 to #85 - okamiterasu ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
That's not called belief, that's called forming a hypothesis. And even then, a hypothesis always has a reasoning behind it that is based on already known facts. I.E.: Cum has something to do with reproduction BECAUSE not cumming inside or using a dildo doesn't make a girl pregnant. Saying it happens because the spirit of Jesus said a prayer and made a fetus spontaneously generate might sound nice and even make sense to a few people, but it has no basis in reality as we know it.
 Friends (0)